-
DRAFT
Taking a Distributed Perspective: Epistemological and
Methodological
Tradeoffs in Operationalizing the Leader Plus Aspect
James P. Spillane Northwestern University
Eric M. Camburn
University of Wisconsin-Madison
James Pustejovsky Amber Stitziel Pareja
Geoff Lewis Northwestern University
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco, April 7 – 11, 2006. Work on this paper was supported by
the Institute for Education Sciences (Grant # R305E040085) and the
Distributed Leadership Studies funded by the National Science
Foundation (RETA Grant # EHR – 0412510).
-
DRAFT
Abstract
Taking a distributed perspective has the potential to offer
fresh insights into how school
leadership and management contribute to the school improvement
process. In this paper the
authors examine multiple operationalizations of core aspects of
a distributed perspective for
studying school leadership and management, comparing and
contrasting what is learned from
each operationalization. Exploring these different
operationalizations we identify two
dimensions along which to consider the epistemological
challenges raised when studying school
leadership with a distributed frame - data source (top down and
bottom up) and data focus (the
organization as designed or the organization as lived). We also
explore whether these
approaches capture variation between schools and between
activity-types in the distribution of
responsibility for leadership work. The primary goal of this
paper is to consider different ways
of studying how the work of managing and leading schools is
distributed among people in
schools and the methodological and epistemological trade-offs
involved in such research.
-
DRAFT
Introduction
Recent work suggests that viewing school leadership from a
distributed perspective has
the potential to provide useful insight into how management and
leadership unfold in the daily
lives of schools. Writing in the area of distributed leadership
has identified numerous entities in
the school across which leadership can be distributed, including
people and aspects of the
situation such as routines and tools (Harris, 2005; MacBeath,
Oduro, & Waterhouse, 2004;
Spillane, 2006). While there have been advances in articulating
conceptual frameworks for
taking a distributed perspective on school leadership and
management (Gronn, 2000; Spillane,
Halverson, and Diamond, 2004), the empirical research base in
this area is less developed. With
a few exceptions (Camburn, Rowan, & Taylor, 2003; Leithwood,
et al., 2007; Spillane,
Camburn, & Pareja, 2007), most empirical work has involved
small samples of schools. But as
we argue in this paper, before researchers begin to accumulate
evidence on distributed leadership
in schools, an important intermediate step needs to be taken:
the operationalization of concepts,
or in other words, the translation of theory into measurement.
It is this intermediate step that is
the primary focus of this paper.
In this paper, we examine the entailments of the distributed
perspective for collecting and
analyzing data. We then go a step further and examine the
results obtained for different
operationalizations of a distributed perspective, considering
along the way the strengths and
weaknesses of each operationalization.
Within the larger domain of distributed leadership, we are
concerned with the
epistemological and methodological challenges involved in
studying the distribution of
-
DRAFT
leadership across people within the school – the leader-plus
aspect of a distributed perspective
(Spillane, 2006). Researchers who wish to study the leader-plus
aspect of distributed leadership
face two basic questions:
! What aspects of leadership and management work are
hypothesized to be
distributed across people?
! Across which school actors do researchers hypothesize
leadership and
management work is distributed?
These questions surface a number of related methodological
questions:
! Who should provide evidence of distributed leadership -
leaders, followers, or both?
Among leaders, should researchers seek evidence on formal
leaders, informal leaders, or
both?
! Should evidence on distributed leadership come from
self-reports, or from more
“impartial” measurement strategies such as the reports of others
(e.g., teachers) through
network surveys?
! What tradeoffs do researchers make with each of these
decisions? In other words, how
do these various operationalizations of the leader plus aspect
of a distributed framework
affect the validity of data?
Ultimately, researchers’ answers to these questions will
determine the kinds of inferences they
will be able to make about distributed leadership.
Our paper is organized as follows. We first consider what it
means to take a distributed
perspective and briefly review the empirical evidence on school
leadership and management
from this perspective. We then provide a detailed account of the
data used in this paper,
addressing issues of validity where possible. Turning to
results, we examine four
-
DRAFT
operationalizations of the leader plus aspect of a distributed
perspective by looking at data for
two elementary schools. Based on this analysis, we identify two
dimensions along which to
examine the issues involved in these four operations of the
leader plus aspect. We then consider
how well our four operationalizations tap into variation between
schools and between activity-
types in the distribution of responsibility for leadership and
management work.
Our central argument is this: one challenge in using a
distributed framework to study
leadership and management involves operationalizing core aspects
of the framework. In taking a
distributed perspective we have to develop study operations that
allow us to validly describe and
examine constructs in our analytical framework. Study operations
are important because they
influence the validity of the inferences we can make based on
the data we gather. For example,
our operationalization of an aspect of a distributed framework
(e.g., co-performance) can fail to
adequately explicate that aspect, or can confound two or more
aspects, and thereby pose a threat
to construct validity. Further, relying on a single
operationalization (i.e., mono-operational bias)
or relying on a single method to gather data on
operationalizations of a construct (i.e., mono-
method bias) can similarly threaten construct validity and call
into question any possible
inferences we can draw from our data.
Conceptual and Empirical Anchors
A distributed perspective is an analytical framework for
investigating school leadership
and management (Spillane, 2006; Gronn, 2003; Spillane, Diamond,
& Jita, 2000, 2003). It
involves two aspects: the leader-plus aspect and the practice
aspect (Spillane, 2006; Spillane &
Diamond, 2007). The leader-plus aspect recognizes that leading
and managing schools can
-
DRAFT
involve multiple individuals. Moreover, school leadership and
management potentially
involves more than the work of individuals in formal leadership
positions – principal, assistant
principal, and specialists; it can also involve individuals who
are not formally designated leaders.
The leadership practice aspect foregrounds the practice of
leading and managing. A practice or
“action perspective sees the reality of management as a matter
of actions” (Eccles & Nohria,
1992, p. 13). Defining leadership and management as practice
allows for the possibility that
people without any formal leadership designations might take a
part in that work (Heifetz, 1994).
While people’s actions are important in studying practice,
interactions are paramount in efforts
to understand the practice from a distributed perspective. From
a distributed perspective,
studying the actions of individuals or aggregating their actions
is insufficient; a distributed
perspective frames practice as a product of the interactions of
school leaders, followers, and
aspects of their situation. We focus chiefly on the leader-plus
aspect in this paper, exploring
different operations of this aspect in research.
Prior empirical work suggests that an exclusive focus on the
school principal is indeed
short-sighted (Harris, 2005; MacBeath, Oduro, & Waterhouse,
2004; Leithwood, Mascall,
Strauss, Sacks, Memon, Yashkina, 2007; Spillane & Diamond,
2007). Defining leadership as a
set of organizational functions rather than tying leadership to
a particular administrative position,
Heller and Firestone (1995) found in a study of eight elementary
schools that multiple leaders,
including school district personnel and external consultants,
were taking responsibility for
leadership. A recent study of more than one hundred U.S.
elementary schools also found that
responsibility for leadership functions was typically
distributed across three to seven formally
designated leadership positions per elementary school (Camburn,
Rowan, and Taylor, 2003).
Camburn and colleagues surveyed formally designated leaders in
each school to examine the
-
DRAFT
distribution of responsibility for leadership functions. Such
positions included principals,
assistant principals, program coordinators or facilitators,
subject area coordinators or facilitators,
mentors, master teachers, or teacher consultants, and other
“auxiliary” professional staff, such as
family outreach workers. Individuals with no formal leadership
designations also take
responsibility for leadership activities. Studies that look
beyond those in formally designated
leadership positions show that teachers also perform key
leadership functions and routines
(Heller and Firestone, 1995; Spillane, 2006; Spillane &
Diamond, 2007; Spillane, Camburn, & ).
Methods
The research reported here is part of a larger evaluation of a
professional development
program intended to prepare principals to be outstanding
instructional leaders within the context
of standards-based accountability systems. The primary objective
of the evaluation was to assess
the effects of participation in the program on school
principals’ practice and knowledge. While a
component of the principal development program exposed
principals to a distributed perspective
on school leadership and the distributed perspective framed our
evaluation study, it was not the
primary focus of the development program or our research.
Data Collection & Instruments
The study was undertaken in a mid-sized urban school district in
the Southeastern United
States. Data collection involved 52 principals and 2,400 school
personnel. For the purpose of
this paper, we analyzed data from three different research
instruments– experience sampling
method (ESM) log, a principal questionnaire (PQ), and a school
staff questionnaire (SSQ).
The first dataset contained responses from principals that were
collected using experience
sampling methodology (ESM). ESM is a technique in which
principals are beeped at random
-
DRAFT
intervals throughout their work day alerting them to fill out a
brief questionnaire programmed on
a handheld computer (PDA). In this way the ESM log captures
behavior as it occurs within a
natural setting. In this study the principals were beeped
fifteen times a day for six days during
Spring 2005. Forty-two of the fifty-two participating principals
provided multiple days of data.
The overall response rate to the beeps spread out across the
six-day sampling period was 66%1.
The second source of data was a web questionnaire (PQ) that was
administered to
principals. For the purpose of this paper, we focused on the
question in the PQ that asked
principals about formal leadership teams at their schools.
Forty-nine of the principals in the
sample completed the PQ (94%).
Finally, we analyzed data collected using a questionnaire that
was mailed to staff
members in all 52 schools. The overall response rate for the SSQ
was 87%; school-level
response rates ranged from 73% to 100%. In this paper we focus
on SSQ survey questions that
asked staff about formal leadership roles and responsibilities
and on social network questions
that asked staff to identify who they turned to for advice in
reading and mathematics. School
staff indicated on the SSQ the specific leadership roles they
fulfill in the school as well as the
percentage of their time that is assigned to this role. These
data provide us with an estimate of
the number of formally designated leaders in each school along
with an estimate of how much
time they spend on management and leadership-specific
responsibilities. On the SSQ, school
staff also identified from whom they sought advice about
mathematics and language arts.
Examining Multiple Operationalizations of the Leader-Plus
Aspect
The leader plus aspect of a distributed perspective can be
operationalized in various
ways, some of which also capture the leadership practice aspect
of a distributed perspective.
Rather than searching for the one best study operation of the
leader plus aspect, we, like others 1 Response rates were
calculated for principals that participated for a majority (i.e., 4
days) of the sampling period
-
DRAFT
(see e.g. Campbell and Fiske, 1959 for perhaps the earliest
discussion of the idea), contend that
multiple operations are desirable in order to minimize threats
to validity. And like others, we
argue that understanding what different operations illuminate
and capture is a critical step in
efforts to generate more robust empirical knowledge about social
constructs in general (Denzin,
1989, Camburn and Barnes, 2004), and about school leadership and
management in particular.
Below we used data from two of the 52 schools in our study, to
explore four different
operationalizations of the leader-plus aspect. We look at how
these operationalizations work and
what insights about leadership and management are generated by
different operationalizations.
These four operations are not the only operationalizations
possible for the leader plus aspect of a
distributed perspective.
Four Operationalizations of the Distribution of
Responsibility
One of the most basic ways in which to understand how
responsibilities are distributed
across staff members is to examine an organization chart to see
which staff members belong to
which leadership and management committees or hold formally
designated
leadership/management positions. On the principal survey,
principals enumerated the
membership of the school’s formal leadership team, thus
providing a sense of what a schools’
organization chart for leadership and management might look
like. By examining how often
different roles are included in school leadership teams (e.g.,
how many schools had the math
coordinator on their leadership team or classroom teachers with
no formal leadership
designation), we gain a broad understanding of the frequency
with which leadership and
management is distributed to non-principal roles in general, and
to particular roles in schools.
Data from the SSQ that identified formally designated leaders
based on school staff self-
reports provided a second indicator of how responsibility for
leadership and management was
-
DRAFT
distributed. In particular, we examined the percentage of staff
with formal leadership
assignments which was based on the total number of staff who
indicated that they held a
leadership/management role compared to the total number of staff
that completed the SSQ.
A third indicator of how responsibility for leadership and
management is distributed in
schools is obtained from the ESM log. This approach differs from
both the PQ and the SSQ in
that unit of study is exclusively the school principal’s
workday. In the ESM log, principals
reported on when they were leading or co-leading the activity
and who they were co-leading with
– administrators, teacher leaders, specialists, teachers, etc.
The ESM log actually provides us
with two somewhat distinct indicators. First, school principals
reported who had responsibility
for the activities that they reported not leading. Second, when
principals reported that they were
co-leading they identified who was co-performing with them. In
this way, the ESM log enables
us to tap into the leadership practice dimension of the
distributed perspective by identifying
instances of co-performance in the school principal’s
workday.
The unit of study in the ESM log is the school principal’s
practice. Although the school
principal is the most senior formally designated leader the ESM
log data provides a relatively
narrow picture of leadership and management practice in a school
because only school principals
completed it. Having other formally designated leaders such as
assistant principals and
curriculum specialists complete the ESM log would provide a
broader picture of leadership and
management practice. Because the principals are prompted to
submit this information by random
beeps, we can get an overall estimate of the percentage of time
they spend leading alone and with
co-leaders when we look at all of the data points across the
six-day sampling period. The
percentages reported from the ESM data in the tables and various
analyses below are based on
instances where the principal indicated that the activity in
which they were participating when
-
DRAFT
beeped was school-related. In our analyses, we calculate the
mean percentages differently based
on the area of interest. When comparing means (e.g., percentage
of time leading alone for
administration versus time leading alone for instruction and
curriculum) we calculate
percentages on all school-related beeps across principals and
days. However, if we are interested
in analyzing variance between days and/or principals, our
percentage of time estimates are
calculated for each principal and day and averaged across all
principal/day combinations.
A fourth view of the ways in which leadership was distributed
across staff members in
schools was obtained by examining the social networks through
which teachers shared advice on
mathematics and language arts instruction. Our approach here
differs from the other three
approaches in two important respects. First, the social network
questions focused on leadership
(defined as a social influence relationships or interactions),
whereas the other three approaches
do not attempt to distinguish leadership from management
activities. Second, in our study the
social network questions focused on mathematics and language
arts rather than leadership
interactions writ large. Hence, by focusing on leadership (as
distinct from leadership and
management) for only two curricular domains these questions
focused on a somewhat narrow
slice of school leadership and management activity.
We analyzed data from social network questions that asked
respondents to list those to
whom they went to for advice about mathematics and language
arts. Respondents were
identified as being leaders in math and/or reading based on the
reports of their peers, using a
measure called in-degree centrality. In social network analysis,
in-degree centrality is a measure
of the number of ties directed to actor from other actors. In an
advice network, an actor’s in-
degree indicates the number of people who approach that actor
for advice. For purposes of
identifying leaders, we make the assumption that any actor who
provides advice to three or more
-
DRAFT
others is a leader. Other researchers have proposed more complex
methods of identifying leaders
using social network data (CITE), though how such calculations
relate to leadership in
theoretical sense is rather unclear. For the purpose of this
paper and without delving into various
theoretical debates on leadership, we believe that our
admittedly simplistic approach will suffice
for illustrative purposes.
By capturing the pattern of influence-relationships among staff,
the social-network
approach also allows the analyst to move beyond the leader-plus
perspective and focus on
leadership practice. We demonstrate this approach by calculating
the frequency with which
influence relationships or interactions are focused on formal
leaders as a percentage of all
influence relationships or interactions identified.
Contrasting Operations of the Leader Plus Aspect: Canton
Elementary and Lowell Elementary
We examine how leadership is distributed among school staff by
looking systematically
at what our different operationalizations turned up for two
schools - Lowell Elementary and
Canton Elementary. We selected these schools because analysis of
the ESM data suggested that
the principals of these two schools differed in the degree to
which they involved others in the
work of leading and managing their schools.
The two case study schools differ not only with respect to how
responsibility for
leadership and management was distributed, but also in terms of
size and the student populations
they served. Lowell Elementary has a staff of 72. Of the 885
students enrolled at Lowell, 28%
receive free or reduced lunches and approximately one-third
(31%) are African-American. In
contrast, Canton Elementary’s staff of 37 serves only 415
students, half of whom receive free or
reduced lunches and a little over half (56%) of whom are
African-American.
-
DRAFT
The two school principals have relatively similar
characteristics and backgrounds. Ms.
Kite, has been an administrator for 13 years, 8 of which have
been at Lowell Elementary. Ms.
Bind has been an administrator for 14 years and principal at
Canton Elementary for 11 of those
years. Both middle-aged Caucasian women, Ms. Kite was a teacher
for 12 years and Ms. Bind
was a teacher for 18 years prior to entering school
administration. Our various research
instruments suggest that the work of leading and managing Lowell
Elementary and Canton
Elementary involves multiple people, in varying degrees, in
addition to Ms. Kite and Ms. Bind.
One of the basic challenges facing researchers taking a
distributed perspective is identifying
the staff among whom the responsibility for leading and managing
is distributed – the leader plus
aspect. In our study, we used four different operations to
identify who these individuals are:
! Principals identified who was on the “leadership team” in the
PQ instrument;
! Principals reported who lead an activity they participated in
or with whom they co-lead
when beeped on the ESM instrument;
! School staff identified themselves in the SSQ instrument as
having a formally designated
leadership position in the school; and
! School staff identified people who provided advice about
mathematics and language arts
in social network type questions (SSQ).
Overall, these four operationalizations suggest some convergence
and divergence in
identifying who takes responsibility for leadership and
management work at Lowell Elementary
and Canton Elementary (See Table 1). While full-time classroom
teachers emerge as leaders in
all four approaches at Lowell Elementary, they emerge in only
three of the four approaches at
Canton Elementary. The assistant principals emerge as players in
three of the four approaches in
-
DRAFT
both schools. Both Ms. Kite and Ms. Bind, the school principals,
emerge in two of the three
applicable approaches. Further, the social l network questions
suggest that some ten regular
classroom teachers are critical to this work in that school.
Similarly, in Canton Elementary, two
classroom teachers are identified as math and/or reading leaders
according to the social network
questions. We examine the four approaches below.
[Insert Table 1 Here]
Principal Report: “Leadership Team” membership (PQ Data). In the
PQ instrument,
both Ms. Kite and Ms. Bind identified who was on the leadership
team at their respective
schools. From the PQ we learn that the leadership team at Lowell
Elementary, according to Ms.
Kite, consists of the principal, the assistant principal, a
variety of specialists, regular classroom
teachers, other staff members, and parents/community members.
According to Ms. Bind, the
leadership team at Canton Elementary consists of the principal,
the assistant principal, a variety
of specialists, various regular classroom teachers, and other
staff members. These data suggest
that more diverse players are involved in the work of leading
and managing the school including
parents/community members at Lowell Elementary compared to
Canton Elementary. We
acknowledge that an exclusive focus on the Leadership Team is
limiting and the inclusion of
other key organizational routines and committees such as School
Improvement Planning
Committee, Language Arts Committee, and Mathematics Committee
may be desirable to provide
a more nuanced account of how responsibility for leadership and
management is distributed.
Principal Report: Who is Leading or Co-Leading (ESM Data). We
can get a sense of
how responsibility for school leadership and management is
distributed across staff at the two
schools by exploring the extent to which Ms. Kite and Ms. Bind,
the school principals report
leading alone, co-leading with others, or not leading an
activity when beeped at random during
-
DRAFT
the workday. The principal at Lowell Elementary, Ms. Kite,
reports co-leading a much larger
proportion of the time (62%) than does Ms. Bind, the principal
at Canton Elementary, who
reports co-leading just under a quarter of the time (23%). (See
Table 2.) Ms. Bind tends to lead
alone, reporting that she lead alone over half the time (58%),
while Ms. Kite lead alone only 14%
of the time. The two principals are somewhat similar in the
amount of time they report not
leading, with Ms. Kite not leading 24% of the time and Ms. Bind
not leading 18% of the time. At
Lowell Elementary, Ms. Kite has a tendency to share her
leadership role with others, while at
Canton Elementary Ms. Bind is inclined to lead alone. Thus,
through their reports of leading
alone, co-leading, or not leading the activities in which they
participated, the two principals
demonstrated divergent practice.
[Insert Table 2 Here]
We get a more detailed picture of how responsibility for school
leadership and
management is distributed across staff at the two schools by
examining principals’ reports of
who is leading an activity that they are not leading, and their
reports of with whom they co-lead
an activity. At Lowell Elementary, for nearly a quarter (24%) of
the activities in which she was
involved over the six-day period, Ms. Kite identified someone
else as leading the activity. On
those occasions where she reported that she was not leading the
activity, the leaders she
identified typically were other formally designated leaders
including subject area specialists, the
assistant principal, and teacher leaders but also included
informal leaders such as regular
classroom teachers, parents, and students (see Table 3). At
Canton Elementary, Ms. Bind
reported that someone else was leading just under one-fifth
(18%) of the activities she was
involved in over the six-day period. During the activities in
which Ms. Bind was participating
but not leading, formally designated leaders such as subject
area specialists and teacher leaders
-
DRAFT
were more likely to be leading than were informal leaders.
Indeed, classroom teachers, parents,
and students were not reported to lead such activities at all.
These data suggest that other
formally designated leaders and informal leaders are important
in understanding the work of
leading and managing Lowell Elementary and Canton Elementary,
although the extent to which
such leaders led differed by school, with informal leaders
figuring more prominently in Ms.
Kite’s workday.
[Insert Table 3 Here]
Based on an analysis of the ESM data, Ms. Kite reported that for
a little over four-fifths
(81%) of those activities where she was leading at least one
other individual (sometimes more
than one) was co-performing the activity with her; Ms. Bind was
more likely to lead alone and
reported co-leading a little over one-quarter (29%) of the
activities in which she was leading (See
Table 4). While Ms. Kite was more likely to report co-performing
an activity with another
formally designated leader, she also reported co-performing
activities with individuals with no
formal leadership designations such as classroom teachers and
even students and parents. Ms.
Bind also led activities with both formal and informal leaders
(See Table 4).
[Insert Table 4 Here]
The percentage of time that Ms. Kite and Ms. Bind reported
leading an activity when
beeped varied depending on the type of activity and by
principal. While Ms. Kite reported
leading almost all administration activities (97%), she reported
leading just under one-half (47%)
of the instruction and curriculum activities. Ms. Bind, on the
other hand, reported leading most
administration activities (87%) and all of the curriculum and
instruction activities (100%),
although she only reported participating in curriculum and
instruction activities during two of 60
beeps over the six-day period. These data on the school
principal’s workday suggest that,
-
DRAFT
depending on the school and the principal, individuals other
than the school principal may be
even more important when it comes to managing and leading
instruction and curriculum,
especially at Lowell Elementary. Of course, the exclusive focus
on the work of the school
principal does not capture a variety of other leadership and
management activities that may not
involve the school principal. For example, some school
principals may delegate certain
leadership and management activities to other formally
designated leaders such as an assistant
principal and the ESM data would not capture these
activities.
Of the activities Ms. Kite reported leading, she worked alone
for one-fifth (18.7%) of
them, and a co-leader was present for the other four-fifths
(81.3%). Ms. Bind, on the other hand,
was much more likely to lead alone. She led alone almost
three-fourths (71.4%) of the activities
she reported leading, and reported co-leading for the other
fourth (28.6%). When co-performing
an activity, Ms. Kite reported working with one other person 85%
of the time, while 15% of the
time there were two or more other people co-performing with her;
Ms. Bind reported working
with one other person 100% of the time when co-leading. Ms. Kite
reported spending her time
co-performing with a variety of people, including subject area
specialists, other professional staff
(e.g., guidance counselors, social workers), classroom teachers,
and non-teaching staff among
others. At Canton Elementary, Ms. Bind co-performed primarily
with non-teaching staff, teacher
leaders, classroom teachers, and students (See Table 4).2 When
Ms. Kite was not leading an
activity that she was involved in a variety of people, including
classroom teachers, subject area
specialists, parents, other professional staff, others, and the
assistant principal among others,
were the leaders she most frequently identified as performing
the activity. Ms. Bind identified
2 Note that the percentages in this table, and several other
tables, will not total to 100% as respondents were able to select
more than one category for several of the questions
-
DRAFT
others, teacher leaders, and non-teaching staff as the most
prominent leaders when she was not
leading an activity she was participating in (see Table 3).
Staff Self-Report of Formally Designated Leadership Position
(SSQ). Based on an
analysis of the SSQ, Lowell Elementary has 15 and Canton
Elementary has nine other
individuals with formally designated leadership positions in
addition to the school principal. The
reader is reminded that Lowell has slightly more than twice as
many students as Canton, so this
difference in the number of leaders seems in proportion. A
slightly larger proportion of the staff
members hold formal leadership roles at Canton Elementary (27%)
than at Lowell Elementary
(22%). At both Lowell Elementary and Canton Elementary, these
formal leadership designations
include one full-time assistant principal who spent all of his
time in the assistant-principal
leadership position. At Lowell Elementary, the remaining 14
leaders include reform coaches,
reading coordinators, math coordinators, other subject
coordinators, mentor teachers, etc. who
spread their time amongst one or more roles. At Canton
Elementary, the remaining eight leaders
include mentors, other subject coordinators, school improvement
coordinators, etc. who perform
one or more role (see Table 5). Further, all of these
individuals selected “regular full-time
teaching appointment” when asked about employment status while
the two full-time assistant
principals (one at Lowell Elementary and one at Canton
Elementary) selected “administration”
for this same question. Table 5 shows the number of people who
spent some portion of their time
in each leadership position and the average percentage of time3
spent on each role.
[Insert Table 5 Here]
3 Estimates for percentage of time spent on each leadership role
were provided via a range (i.e., 0%, 1-25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, 76-99%,
and 100%). When calculating the average percentage of time spent on
each role, we used the midpoint of each of the ranges.
-
DRAFT
School staff reports on leaders for mathematics and language
arts (SSQ). In the SSQ we
asked the staff at Lowell Elementary and Canton Elementary to
identify those to whom they turn
to for advice about mathematics and language arts instruction.
Examining these data, we can
identify both formal and informal leaders for two core school
subjects and gauge how
responsibility for leadership and management in these two school
subjects is distributed. Using
the measure of in-degree centrality4, we can identify who
provides leadership in mathematics and
reading at Lowell Elementary and Canton Elementary. For
illustrative purposes, we define a
leader as any actor with an in-degree of at least three. Such a
cut-off allows us to focus on those
actors that are more influential in a given subject-area and to
reduce sensitivity to random noise
in the data. Using a fixed cut-off point also allows for simple
comparisons across schools. Using
this definition, we identify 13 mathematics leaders and 12
reading leaders at Lowell Elementary
and three math leaders and five reading leaders at Canton
Elementary. At Lowell Elementary,
10 of the math leaders are regular classroom teachers with no
formal leadership designation
while only three are formally designated leaders: a mentor
teacher who teaches first and second
grades and two gifted education teachers that have leadership
roles as whole school reform
coordinators. Similarly, the same mentor teacher is the only
reading leader with a formally
designated leadership position while the remaining 11 reading
leaders are regular classroom
teachers with no formal leadership designation. Six of the
informal leaders appear in both
networks. At Canton Elementary, two of the three math leaders
and three of the five reading
leaders have formal leadership positions; the remaining math
leader and two reading leaders are
classroom teachers with no formal leadership designation.
[Insert Table 6 Here]
4 In-degree centrality is a simple way of determining which
actors are most central in a network. In-degree centrality is
measured by counting the number of other actors who report going to
a particular individual for advice or information about a given
subject-area.
-
DRAFT
Using the social network approach, it becomes apparent that
classroom teachers are
involved in providing math and reading leadership at both
schools. The social network questions
identify more informal leaders at Lowell Elementary than at
Canton Elementary. The difference
in school size (Lowell Elementary is more than two times as
large as Canton Elementary) could
be a contributing factor in the differing levels of informal
leadership, however, since larger
schools may require more reliance on informal leaders.
[Insert Table 7 here]
At both Lowell and Canton, classroom teachers with no formal
leadership role account
for the majority of advice-relationships related to both
mathematics and reading. At Lowell, 23%
of mathematics advice relationships are directed to formal
leaders, with the school-reform coach
playing the single most prominent role. Only 13% of language
arts advice relationships are
directed to formal leaders at Lowell. Particularly striking in
both networks is that formally-
designated language arts and mathematics coordinators appear to
play a very small role. At
Canton, formal leaders account for approximately one third of
the advice relationships in both
mathematics and language arts. Mentor teachers are the most
prominent formally-designated
role in both networks at Canton.
[Insert Tables 8 & 9 Here]
Methodological and Epistemological Considerations
As illustrated through the Cases of Lowell Elementary and Canton
Elementary, these four
approaches to operationalizing the leader-plus aspect of the
distributed perspective allow
different ways of understanding how responsibility for
leadership and management is distributed
in schools – even when the same research instrument was used
such as the SSQ. Examining the
four approaches we can identify different epistemological
assumptions. We can think about the
-
DRAFT
four approaches along two dimensions (See Table 8). First, we
can categorize the various
approaches based on the data source; that is, who provides
evidence about the distribution of
responsibility for leadership and management work. Second, we
can categorize the approaches
on whether they generate data about the formal designed
organization or the organization as
lived (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Brown & Duguid, 19??).
[Insert Table 8 Here]
Both dimensions are critical in that they suggest different ways
of coming to know and
justifying knowledge claims about how responsibility for
leadership and management is
distributed in the school. The top-down/bottom-up dimension
foregrounds who should provide
evidence about the distribution of responsibility. The designed
organization/lived organization
dimension underscores that one can come to know how leadership
is distributed in schools either
through focusing on the formally designated leadership positions
in the school (the designed
organization) or through the day-to-day practice of leadership
and management (the lived
organization). While these two aspects of the organization are
related, they are not mirror
images of one another.
The top-down approach relies on the reports of the school
principals, Ms. Kite and Ms.
Bind, and could be extended to include other formally designated
leaders (see Camburn, Rowan,
& Taylor, 2001). From an epistemological perspective,
examining how leadership is distributed
by examining the work of the school principal is sensible given
the principal’s position at the top
of the organization. In this study, principals’ reports are of
two sorts. In the PQ, principals
report on the designed organization by listing members of the
school leadership team. The
designed organization, however, may not be an accurate
representation of what actually happens
in the day-to-day life of managing and leading the school (i.e.,
the organization as lived). In the
-
DRAFT
ESM principals are reporting on who actually performs or is
co-performing with them particular
leadership and management activities. Both approaches show that
both formally designated and
informal leaders have responsibility for school management and
leadership at both schools.
The ESM data, however, goes beyond the PQ data in at least two
respects. First, it goes
beyond identifying those who have responsibility for leadership
and management at Lowell
Elementary and Canton Elementary and identifies those
individuals who actually do the work.
Second, with the ESM data we also get a sense of the
arrangements for distributing leadership
and management work including tapping into the leadership
practice aspect of the distributed
framework. For example, we get a sense of the prominence of
co-performance of leadership and
management work - we can identify situations in which two or
more actors co-perform a
leadership or management activity, albeit tied entirely to the
principal’s practice. Still, this is a
situation where we are operationalizing both the leader plus
aspect and at least part of the
leadership practice aspect. Using the ESM data for Lowell
Elementary and Canton Elementary
we can gauge the prevalence of co-performance in the school
principal’s work and examine how
it differs by activity type. The principal at Lowell Elementary,
for example, is more likely to co-
perform an activity tied to instruction and curriculum than one
tied to administration. The
principal at Lowell Elementary is much more likely to co-perform
in general than is the principal
at Canton Elementary.
From an epistemological perspective, including the perspective
of all organizational
members especially those more often than not cast in the
follower role – regular classroom
teachers - also seems sensible. For leaders and managers to lead
and manage, others must agree
to be led and managed (Dahl, 1961; Cuban, 1988). Further, people
in schools, even school
principals and other formally designated leaders, can move in
and out of leader and follower
-
DRAFT
roles depending on the task or activity. Hence, we can learn
about leadership and management
by focusing on the perspectives of all organizational members so
that we include the views of
those who are chiefly in follower roles in addition to those of
the leaders. Items on the SSQ
allow us to do this in two ways. First, the SSQ asks
organizational members if they have a
formally designated leadership position in the school. Second,
the SSQ networks questions ask
organizational members to identify people who they seek advice
from in mathematics and
language arts.
The two SSQ items that were designed to incorporate the
bottom-up perspective generate
strikingly different accounts of how responsibility for
leadership is distributed among people in
the school. While the self-reports on formal leadership
positions foregrounds the designed
organization as represented in formally designated leadership
positions, the network questions
focus on the organization as lived and allow for the emergence
of both formally designated and
informal leaders. At both Lowell Elementary and Canton
Elementary, around one-fifth
indicated that they held a formally designated leadership or
management position, which is a
very high percentage of the faculty. (We propose to examine
these reports as the number of
leaders is very large.) The social network questions suggest
that the distribution of leadership, at
least with respect to the sharing of advice about mathematics
and language arts instruction, is
more evenly distributed between formally designated leaders and
informal leaders (i.e.,
individuals with no formal leadership designation). Of the two
principals and three assistant
principals at the two schools, only one part-time assistant
principal at Canton Elementary
emerges as a leader from the network measures. Still, formally
designated leaders remain
important (three at Lowell Elementary and four at Canton
Elementary) and are potentially some
of the most important leaders in terms of the number of others
who seek advice from them.
-
DRAFT
Regardless of the way we operationalize the leader plus aspect,
the data suggest that the
work of managing and leading Lowell Elementary and Canton
Elementary involves multiple
actors, even according to the top down approach that privileges
the school principal.
Operationalizations that tap into the organization as lived
suggest that when studying the
distribution of responsibility for leadership and management, it
is important to study school staff
with no formal leadership designations. Even the ESM data,
looking at leadership and
management work from the top-down and only from the school
principal’s workday, suggests
that actors with no formal leadership designations are important
to consider when examining
how the work is distributed over people.
Variance Between Schools and Between Activity-Types
An important consideration is whether our study operations of
the leader plus aspect
manage to pick up variability in how leadership is distributed
in schools. In this section, we
present a preliminary analysis focusing on variance between
schools and between activity types
in the distribution of responsibility for leadership and
management work using some of our
different operationalizations of the leader plus aspect. Our
main question is this: Do our various
operationalizations of the distribution of responsibility for
leadership and management enable us
to identify differences between schools and between activity
types?
The Designed Organization
The SSQ instrument provides self-reports of formally designated
leadership positions.
Overall, 30% (622 of 2,070 respondents) spend at least a portion
of their time in a formally
designated leadership role. Over 25% of these actors reported
being in one or more full-time
-
DRAFT
leadership positions. These percentages are fairly consistent
across schools. The actual number
of full-time leaders with administrative appointments is
smaller, however, since a large
proportion of the respondents who reported having a formal
leadership designation also reported
having a full-time classroom teaching assignment. For example,
approximately three-fourths of
the 336 formally designated elementary leaders reported having a
full-time teaching assignment.
Across schools, the average number of staff members per school
who reported having one or
more formally designated leadership positions (in addition to
the school principal) was 12.0.
Table 11 displays the number of people (including those with a
full-time teaching assignment)
assigned to each role, the average number of people assigned to
that role across schools, and the
average percentage of time spent on each role across
schools.
The Lived Organization
In this section we explore variability among schools and
activity types using data
generated by the ESM log and the SSQ social network questions
that focused on the lived
organization. The ESM log captures the organization as lived
from the perspective of the school
principal whereas the SSQ captures it from the perspective of
all organizational members
regardless of whether they are formally designated leaders or
not.
The Principal’s Work Day: Using ESM Data
We begin by looking at variability in ESM measures by school and
then turn our
attention to variability by activity type. We use box plots to
depict the variance in this analysis.5
On average, school principals lead 69% of the activities they
engage in and they lead
alone for 52% of these activities. Graph 1 displays the
distribution of the percent of time
5 The “box” indicates the upper and lower quartiles of the
distribution and the median is the dark horizontal line. The
“whiskers” show the range of values that are within 1.5 times the
box height. All of the values outside of the whiskers are
considered outliers.
-
DRAFT
principals spend leading an activity. There is considerable
variation across schools in the
amount of time principals are leading the activity in which they
are engaged ranging from 44% -
90%, excluding outliers (see Graph 1). While some principals
reported that someone else was
leading over 50% of the activities they participated in over the
six-day period, others reported
that someone else was leading only 10% of the time. Focusing on
those activities where the
school principal reported leading, we see even more variation
between schools in the amount of
time principals’ lead alone as distinct from co-leading with
someone else, ranging from 19% to
91%. Overall, the ESM log picks up considerable variability in
the frequency with which staff
other than the principal lead an activity, and the frequency
with which principals co-lead
activities with others.
This variation across principals is more pronounced when we
consider the type of activity
in which the principal is participating. Table 9 shows the
differences in the mean percentages for
leading and leading alone by activity type. We find that
principals lead the majority of
administrative related activities by themselves. In sharp
contrast, principals lead just over half of
the instruction and curriculum related activities.
There is more variability between principals in whether they are
leading the activity or
not for instruction and curriculum related activities than for
administration related activities (see
Graph 2). There is also more variation between principals in
whether they are leading alone or
co-leading for instruction and curriculum related activities
compared with administrative related
activities.
Data generated by the ESM log also indicate considerable
variability in the staff members
with whom principals engage in co-leadership. Overall,
principals selected classroom teachers
most frequently as co-leading an activity with them, followed by
other professional staff, and
-
DRAFT
teacher leaders (See Table 10). Principals were considerably
more likely to co-lead with
classroom teachers than with teacher leaders and assistant
principals. The fact that principals
spent more time co-leading with classroom teachers than teacher
leaders is curious but may be
driven by the total number of teachers relative to the number of
teacher leaders and assistant
principals. On average, principals spend relatively little time
co-leading with assistant principals
on matters of instruction and curriculum.
Examining the variability in the school principal’s co-leaders
by activity, Graph 3
displays the data for the four most frequently selected
co-leaders. There was substantial variation
between principals in the percentage of time they spent
co-leading with teachers (either teacher
leaders or classroom teachers) in activities related to
instruction and curriculum and less
variability for administration related activities. Again, the
ESM log seems to pick up
considerable variation in how leadership is distributed over
people by activity type. For
example, comparing the distributions of these co-leaders to one
another and comparing
distributions within co-leaders across activity-types, we see
that the range of variation in who co-
leads differs by activity type.
[Insert Graph 3 Here]
The ESM log also picks up variance by school and activity-type
in terms of whether the
school principal is leading the activity or not, and if the
principal is leading whether she or he is
leading alone or co-leading with someone else.
Advice Givers: Using SSQ Network Data
In this section we examine variability in the social network
measures of leaders by
activity type; in this case, mathematics and reading. For the
purpose of this preliminary analysis,
we defined leaders as any staff member that provides advice to
at least three of their colleagues.
-
DRAFT
Using these criteria, we identified 181 math leaders and 200
reading leaders out of a total sample
of 2492 people. Of the mathematics leaders, 45% had a formal
leadership role, while 49% had
no formally designated leadership role in the school (7% were
unknown). Among reading
leaders, 44% were formally designated as leaders while 48% were
informal leaders (9% were
unknown). Overall, principals and vice-principals did not play a
large role in leading (defined as
a social influence relationship) mathematics and reading
instruction according to this approach.
Only one principal emerged as a leader in mathematics, and three
principals emerged as reading
leaders. Assistant-principals were slightly more prominent – 9
were identified as math leaders
and 10 were identified as reading leaders (see Table 12). More
striking is that individuals with
formal leadership designations in mathematics and language arts
figured less prominently than
we might have expected. While 37% of the reading coordinators
emerged as leaders based on
our analysis of the social network data, 63% did not emerge as
leaders. The situation was similar
for mathematics; over 50% of mathematics coordinators did not
emerge as leaders based on our
analysis of the social network data (See Table 12). We need to
point out two limitations with
respect to operationalizing leadership using social network
data. First, we define leadership for
mathematics and language arts as a social influence interaction
and specifically related to advice
giving and therefore our approach is unlikely to pick-up on
forms of leadership that may not
involve interactions. Second, as noted earlier, the social
network questions in the SSQ focused
exclusively on mathematics and language arts and therefore are
unlikely to pick up on social
influence interactions that may be subject matter neutral or
generic (e.g., classroom management,
student discipline). Hence, we urge caution in interpreting
these findings as they are premised
on a number of assumptions.
-
DRAFT
On average, less than a tenth of the school’s respondents were
identified as math (7%)
and language arts (8%) leaders. The percentage of the school’s
respondents who were identified
as language arts and math leaders, however, varied greatly
between schools. The percentage of
respondents who were mathematics leaders varied from 0 to 18% of
the staff depending on the
school, and the percentage of respondents who were identified as
language arts leaders varied
from 0 to 22% of the staff (See Graph 4).
Across schools, 36% of all mathematics advice relationships or
interactions and 38% of
all language arts advice relationships or interactions were
directed towards formal leaders in any
role (see Table 13). One might expect that mathematics
coordinators would play a large role in
the mathematics networks, but they account for only 15% of all
advice-relationships. Similarly,
reading coordinators account for only 17% of advice
relationships in the reading networks. The
social network data revealed considerable variation across
schools in the degree to which formal
leaders were involved in advice relationships. Across schools,
formal leaders accounted for
between 0% and 77% of math advice relationships, and 0% and 82%
of language arts advice
relationships (see Graph 5).
Our data suggests fewer leaders when we use the social network
measure rather than the
self-report measure of a formal leadership position. This is to
be expected as our social network
measure focused narrowly on mathematics and reading rather than
instruction writ large and
further failed to include activities not directly tied to
instruction (e.g., scheduling). Further, the
social network questions attempted to zone in on leadership
activities (defined as social influence
interactions) rather than including both leadership and
management activities. Hence fewer
leaders might be expected. Comparing the two approaches, one
advantage of the social network
approach is that it identifies actors with no formal leadership
designation as important actors in
-
DRAFT
school leadership. Further, the social network data suggests
that a formal leadership designation
(e.g., mathematics coordinator, literacy coordinator) may not be
a good indicator of who actual
leads in the day-to-day life of the organization. As noted
above, two-thirds of the reading
coordinators were not identified as leaders for reading
instruction by staff. Similarly, 113
individuals identified themselves as assistant principals in the
self-identification as formally
designated leader SSQ question, only 8% and 9% of these
individuals emerged as leaders for
reading and mathematics respectively in the SSQ social network
questions.
Discussion and Conclusion
We examined evidence of how responsibility for leading and
managing schools was
distributed across people along two dimensions. First, we
examined how the data source –
whether data came from principals at the top of the organization
or from all organizational
members, regardless of whether they were formally designated
leaders or not - influenced the
conclusions one might draw about leadership distribution.
Second, we considered how the target
of data collection – be it the designed organization or the
lived organization – impacted
conclusions about distributed leadership. The various approaches
show considerable agreement
with respect to the individuals over whom leadership is
distributed in schools. While
acknowledging broad similarities among the various approaches,
the different approaches also
surfaced some divergence that has implications for thinking
about the epistemological and
methodological challenges in measuring leadership from a
distributed perspective.
Of the four approaches, the findings about the distribution of
leadership generated by the
social network questions on the SSQ differed most from the
findings generated by the other
instruments. This is in part a function of the fact that these
questions focused on leadership for
-
DRAFT
mathematics and reading rather than leadership and management
for instruction writ large. Still,
more than the content focus of the questions seems to be at
play. For example, nearly two-thirds
of the formally designated language arts leaders and one half of
the formally designated
mathematics leaders did not emerge as leaders based on our
analysis of the social network data.
Tapping into the lived organization, the social network
questions suggest that an exclusive focus
on formally designated leaders may miss an important dimension
of how the work of leading and
managing schools is distributed over people. We acknowledge
limitations inherent in using
network data to identify leaders. This approach assumes that
providing advice indicates the
provision of leadership, an assumption about which we cannot be
sure. This technique also
relies on a single avenue for the exercise of leadership,
namely, advice-giving relationships or
interactions. While most leadership theories posit that
leadership occurs through social
influence interactions or relationships, leadership may also
occur through non-interactional
means.
Approaches that target the organization as lived (ESM Principal
Log, SSQ Network
Questions) are important for tapping how leadership is
distributed over actors with no formal
leadership designation. Regardless of whether these approaches
attempt to get at leadership from
the top down (i.e., the principals’ on the spot reports
regarding who is leading or co-leading) or
from the bottom up, they appear to capture an important
dimension of school leadership that may
be missed by data collection approaches that focus exclusively
on the organization as designed.
We examined whether the measures picked up variation between
schools and activity-
type. As one might expect, approaches that target the lived
organization appear to pick up more
variation between schools than approaches that focus on the
designed organization.
-
DRAFT
Lamenting the lack of empirical work using a distributed
framework, scholars have
rushed to gather data that generates knowledge about how
leadership and management is
distributed in schools and in some cases whether there is a
relationship between how leadership
and management is distributed and student achievement. While
these efforts are commendable,
often a critical step in the process of moving from a broad
analytic frame to empirical data
collection has been glossed over and not subjected to critical
reflection. In this paper, we explore
various ways of operationalizing a distributed perspective
showing how different
operationalizations can result in different conclusions with
respect to how leadership and
management is distributed in schools. In doing so, we argue for
much more attention to study
operations when investigating leadership and management using a
distributed perspective. Steps
to generate an empirical knowledge base using a distributed
perspective should strive to
minimize threats to construct validity by carefully and
critically appraise different ways of
operationalizing aspects of the framework. Absent this, the
validity of the inferences we can
make from the empirical data will be compromised.
-
DRAFT
References
Daniel J. Brass. "Being in the Right Place: A Structural
Analysis of Individual Influence in an
Organization" in Administrative Science Quarterly - Dec.,
1984.
Camburn, E., Rowan, B., and Taylor, J. (2003). Distributed
Leadership in Schools: The Case of
Elementary Schools Adopting Comprehensive School Reform Models.
Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis. 25(4), 347-373.
Camburn, E., and Barnes, C. (2004). Assessing the validity of a
language arts instruction log through
triangulation. Elementary School Journal, 105, 49-74.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and
discriminant validation by the multitrait-
multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
Cuban, L. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of
leadership in schools. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Dahl, R.A. (1961) Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an
American City. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act: A theoretical
introduction to sociological methods (3d ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gronn, Peter. 2000. “Distributed Properties: A New Architecture
for Leadership.” Educational
Management & Administration 28, 3: 317-38.
Heller, M.F. & Firestone, W.A. (1995) Who’s in charge here?
Sources of leadership for change in eight
schools. Elementary School Journal. 96 (1), 65--86.
Spillane, J., Halverson, R., Diamond, J. (2004). Towards a
Theory of School Leadership Practice:
Implications of a Distributed Perspective. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 36 (1): 3-34.
-
DRAFT
Spillane, J. (2006). Distributed Leadership. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
-
DRAFT
-
DRAFT
Table 1. Nominated Leaders Across Data Sources for
Lowell Elementary and Canton Elementary
PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL
FORMALLY DESIGNATED
LEADER CLASSROOM
TEACHER
Lowell Canton Lowell Canton Lowell Canton Lowell Canton
Leadership Team Member (PQ)
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
Identification as Leader or Co-Leader (ESM)
YES YES YES NO YES YES YES YES
Self-Identification as Designated Leader (SSQ)
N/A N/A YES YES 14 7 N/A N/A
Identified as Math and/or Reading Leader (SSQ)
NO NO NO YES 3 3 10 2
-
DRAFT
Table 2. Percent of Time Principal was Co-Leading, Not Leading,
and Leading Alone – All Beeps
Co-Lead Not Lead Lead Alone Lowell (n = 63) 62 24 14 Canton (n =
60) 23 18 58
-
DRAFT
Table 3. Percentage of Beeps Different People Led When Principal
Was Not Leading
According to ESM
Leader Lowell (n = 15)
Canton (n = 11)
Classroom Teacher 46.7% 0.0%Subject Area Specialist 46.7%
9.1%
Parents 40.0% 0.0%Other Professional Staff 33.3% 9.1%
Other 33.3% 36.4%Assistant Principal 26.7% 0.0%
Teacher Leader 20.0% 18.2%District Staff 13.3% 9.1%
Student 6.7% 0.0%Non-Teaching Staff 0.0% 18.2%
Community Member 0.0% 0.0%
-
DRAFT
Table 4. Percentage of Beeps Different People Co-Lead When
Principal Was
Co-Leading According to ESM
Co-Leader Lowell (n = 39)
Canton (n = 12)
Subject Area Specialist 20.5% 0.0% Other Professional Staff
20.5% 0.0%
Classroom Teacher 17.9% 14.3% Non-Teaching Staff 17.9% 35.7%
Assistant Principal 15.4% 0.0%
Teacher Leader 15.4% 14.3% District Staff 10.3% 7.1%
Student 2.6% 14.3% Parent 2.6% 0.0%
Community Members 0.0% 7.1% Other 0.0% 7.1%
-
DRAFT
Table 5. Average Percentage of Time Spent on Each Leadership
Role in SSQ
Lowell Canton Role # of People % of Time # of People % of Time
Assistant Principal 1 100% 2 56%
Reading coordinator 1 38% 0 n/a Math coordinator 2 69% 0 n/a
Other subject coordinator 7 27% 2 13% Special program
coordinator 1 38% 2 25%
School improvement coordinator 3 42% 3 38% School reform coach 5
23% 1 13%
Mentor teacher 7 52% 3 46% Teacher consultant 3 13% 1 13%
Other 2 56% 4 31% Any formal role 15 63% 9 57%
-
DRAFT
Table 6. Math and Reading Leaders: Staff with an in-degree of 3
or more
Lowell Elementary Canton Elementary Math Reading Math
Reading
Formal Leader 3 1 2 3 No Formal Leadership Designation
10 11 1 2
Total 13 12 3 5 Total as a percentage of staff 18% 17% 8%
14%
-
DRAFT
Table 7. Percentage of advice-seeking directed towards formal
leaders
Lowell Canton Role Math Reading Math Reading
Principal 1 1 0 0 Assistant Principal 1 2 6 8 Reading
coordinator 1 1 n/a n/a Math coordinator 1 1 n/a n/a Other subject
coordinator 3 5 9 15 Special program coordinator 1 0 6 0 School
improvement coordinator 10 3 9 8 School reform coach 13 2 3 0
Mentor teacher 8 9 21 18 Teacher consultant 10 2 6 8 Other 4 2 6 21
Any formal role 23 13 33 36
-
DRAFT
Table 8. Epistemology and Methodology
Designed Organization Lived Organization
Top-down PQ Leader Team Members ESM
Bottom-up SSQ – Leadership designation SSQ – Social Network
-
DRAFT
Table 9. Percentage of Time Leading and Leading Alone by
Activity
Activity %
Leading % Leading
Alone Administration 77.8% 55.2%
Fostering Relationships 65.9% 38.1% Instruction & Curriculum
55.2% 45.5%
Professional Growth 23.3% 46.4%
-
DRAFT
Table 10. Co-Leader Participation Percentages
Co-Leader % Classroom Teacher 29.3%
Other Professional Staff 24.0%Teacher Leader 23.8%
Assistant Principal 21.3%Non-Teaching Staff 16.0%
Student 15.7%Subject Area Specialist 10.4%
Parent 7.2%Other 7.0%
District Staff 3.8%Community Members 2.3%
-
DRAFT
Table 11: SSQ Formal Leadership Designations
Role #
Avg # per
school
Avg % of Time
Assistant Principal 113 2.2 59%Reading coordinator 108 2.1
47%
Math coordinator 81 1.6 36%Other subject coordinator 213 4.1
43%
Special program coordinator 164 3.2 48%School improvement
coordinator 160 3.1 40%
School reform coach 171 3.3 39%Mentor teacher 317 6.1 38%
Teacher consultant 201 3.9 38%Other 120 2.3 44%
Any role 622 12.0 65%
-
DRAFT
Table 12. Proportion of Category Considered Math & Language
Leaders According to Network Data Role % Math Leaders % Reading
Leaders Principal (n = 52) 2 6 Assistant Principal (n = 113) 8 9
Reading coordinator (n = 108) 6 37 Math coordinator (n = 81) 44 6
Other subject coordinator (n = 213) 9 8 Special program coordinator
(n = 164) 10 14 School improvement coordinator (n = 160) 16 14
School reform coach (n = 171) 16 13 Mentor teacher (n = 317) 16 15
Teacher consultant (n = 201) 15 10 Other Leader (n = 120) 8 14 Any
formal role (n = 674) 12 13 No Formal Leadership Designation (n =
1448) 6 7
-
DRAFT
Table 13. Percentage of advice relationships directed towards
formal leaders Role Math Reading Principal (n = 52) 2 2 Assistant
Principal (n = 113) 5 4 Reading coordinator (n = 108) 3 17 Math
coordinator (n = 81) 15 3 Other subject coordinator (n = 213) 8 7
Special program coordinator (n = 164) 8 9 School improvement
coordinator (n = 160) 11 9 School reform coach (n = 171) 12 11
Mentor teacher (n = 317) 20 19 Teacher consultant (n = 201) 12 11
Other Leader (n = 120) 5 7 Any formal role (n = 674) 36 38
-
DRAFT
Graph 1. Percentage of Time Leading and Leading Alone
-
DRAFT
Graph 2. Percentage of Time Leading Activities
-
DRAFT
Graph 3: Percentage of Time Spent with Co-Leaders
} } } }
Teacher Leader Classroom Teacher Asst Principal Other Prof
Staff
Admin Admin Admin Admin I&C I&C I&C I&C
-
DRAFT
Graph 4. Percentage of School Staff Identified as Math and
Language Arts Leaders
-
DRAFT
Graph 5. Percentage of advice relationships directed towards
formal leaders